« Charles Murray and the future | Main | Remember the Half Sigma politics chart? »

February 15, 2012

Comments

"Alleged" crimes? The NGO employees are 100% guilty as charged, their entire purpose of being in egypt is to subvert egyptian control and keep the country under the thumb of the boston/foggy bottom brahmins

I'll disagree for one reason: after the 70s, the media and protest movements realized that they should never fire on one of their own. This is why anti-war protestors never come out against Dem pols anymore. This is why the MSM bends over backwards to cover up for Dem pols. They saw how protesting LBJ and bad press allowed Nixon to come back & win re-election and then Reagan to beat an incumbent. No matter how wrong Obama, no matter how out of step his policy action or decision, the MSM will forever paint it as good. The attack dogs of the Dems (women's, minority or anti-war groups) will stay silent no matter how screwed over.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120214-712307.html
UPDATE:Major Shipping Companies Avoid Iran As Sanctions Tighten

Oil shippers are having problems obtaining insurance due to the sanctions. So even if there are new buyers they will have a problem getting it shipped.

Carter was also undone by that age old human factor thing, I have a friend who was stationed in Italy at the time, his flitecrew buds in the staging areas told him because of the secrecy and the yet to be unified military mission, the mechanics rolled out their "hangar queens" to lend to other unattached military branches and units as they kept all their good ones flite ready for their own use. It was standard to lend the lemons out, no one knew it was a super critical mission, he was told two of the helicopters were complete train wrecks, and yes, overheating was a big problem..........

....the standard narratives CARTERCAUSEDIT are fodder forever for tortured bloggers...ever see/read how RPerot flew into the country and visited his employees in jail during the chaos, and eventually got them out? I doubt he will be heading to Egypt as that is a horse of a different color...Oh my Ra!

eerily similar...

a. Inspiring inexplicable fear, dread, or uneasiness; strange and frightening.
b. Suggestive of the supernatural; mysterious. See Synonyms at weird.
2. Scots Frightened or intimidated by superstition.

[Middle English eri, fearful, from Old English earg, cowardly.]

I can't wait for the Iranians to "see the light" and "repent", redress past transgressions, and come willingly as a light unto the rest of the "real world".

Maybe HBD has em by the rocks and skirtz?


I am for sanctions as a first course of attack. In general I don't think we should jump to war, but I do think that stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons is a worthy reason to go to war.

Why did you not touch on Stuxnet? That was Israel with the blessing and probable technical collaboration of the US. I have no fear that Obama is being or going to be soft on Iran. He will bomb, or help Israel bomb Iran if it becomes absolutely necessary. In the meantime, I support the espionage and sabotage route.

I love how everyone wants to play pretend general and blithely state that Iran getting nukes justifies initiating war with them. You can search far and wide and not find a crazier regime than N. Korea. They have nukes, and should have an eye kept on them, but it wasn't the end of the world when they got nukes and it won't be the end of the world (or the US, or Israel) if Iran gets them. In fact it may make things safer, since saber-rattling tends to die down.

And maybe then Israel will stop murdering Iranian nuclear engineers.

If God was just he would make sure anyone who agitates for war actually has to fight it.

Iran talks more shit than any country in the world. I would love to see them receive a beatdown from the US. Even Iranians in this country have this weirdly intense (and undeserved) pride in their ancestry. Whites could take a lesson from that.

"I love how everyone wants to play pretend general and blithely state that Iran getting nukes justifies initiating war with them. You can search far and wide and not find a crazier regime than N. Korea. They have nukes, and should have an eye kept on them, but it wasn't the end of the world when they got nukes and it won't be the end of the world (or the US, or Israel) if Iran gets them. In fact it may make things safer, since saber-rattling tends to die down."

North Korea is probably crazier than Iran. They may even be more likely to use nuclear weapons than Iran (this is doubtful, in my opinion, but it is possible.) But that does not mean that allowing Iran to achieve nuclear weapons is a good thing or anything short of disastrous.

North Korea having the bomb sucks. It means there is a standing risk that Seoul or Tokyo just get obliterated if Kim Jong ___ gets too jumpy, or the regime decides they want to threaten or extort. But you see, we really can't do anything about that precisely because N. Korea has the bomb. What are you going to do, fight a major war with N. Korea? Then you risk exactly the nuclear disaster you wanted to avoid in the first place.

Moreover, the N. Koreans are in a much better position to kick us in the balls than the Iranians. Even if they didn't launch their nukes, or their nukes (as may well be the case) are so inaccurate it wouldn't matter if they did, they are still positioned to massacre a couple million or more S. Koreans. North Korean artillery lines the border with the South. Nothing we can reasonably do could stop them from shelling Seoul really, really hard.

So these are some reasons why going to war with Korea is bad policy, even though their having nuclear weapons is very scary. Notice that these reasons do not apply equally to the Iran case.

Iran doesn't have the bomb yet. If they do get the bomb, the world is a significantly more dangerous place. The Iranians hate the Israelis, and it is not unreasonable to think that they would like to use nuclear terrorism against Israel or the United States. They probably wouldn't do this because the retaliation would be massive, but if the regime ever felt endangered or as if the game was up the nuclear option gives them the ability to take the world with them. Ultimately, the people who control Iran right now want Israelis and Americans to die. As long as this is the case sane people should fear giving them nuclear weapons.

More broadly, we have to get a handle on nuclear proliferation at some point. Simply allowing every dirt country nuclear arms almost guarantees a nuclear exchange by the end of the century. Every new nuclear state makes the situation more treacherous.

There are few things which really merit risking the lives of our young men. Preventing nuclear war is one of them, and there is no plausible way to avoid nuclear war without putting the foot down on proliferation at some point. Some people say "oh, but if everyone had nukes MAD would work perfectly!" This amounts to betting the survival of civilization on a particular account of human rationality. One, it is worth mentioning, that cannot account for Islamic suicide bombers. Even during the relatively short and relatively stable cold war situation we came within chance of nuclear exchange on two occasions. We should not let our good fortune in 60 years of nuclear armament cognitively bias us into thinking MAD is a long term stable solution. Ultimately, it only takes one nuclear armed rogue actor to ruin the world. It is in our deepest interest to keep the number of nuclear actors down.

"Iran talks more shit than any country in the world. I would love to see them receive a beatdown from the US. Even Iranians in this country have this weirdly intense (and undeserved) pride in their ancestry. Whites could take a lesson from that."

I disagree on the beating part, but I do agree on the undeserved pride of their history and ancestry most Iranians display.

The Iranians today are so race-mixed that if Cyrus the Great or Antiochus III were to rise from their tomb and re-seize power, they would have 99% of their subjects exterminated.

"Even Iranians in this country have this weirdly intense (and undeserved) pride in their ancestry. Whites could take a lesson from that."

Iranians are white, you moron. They're of majority caucasoid extraction.

@ Frank Stein

We outsourced the job of controlling the Norks to China. Who besides us can keep Iran in check? They're threatening to shut down the Straits as it is, who can predict what they would do with Nukes?

I'm curious. Did you see my post, called "Those dastardly Mormons" prior to posting this one? They're both on the same day and I hadn't seen yours. Maybe we have some sort of psychic connection.

[HS: Except for the mention of hamentashen (a connection hardly anyone would get), I don't think our two posts have anything in common.]

Iranians are the only people that continue to brag about an empire that hasn't existed for thousands of years.

Iran talks more shit than any country in the world. I would love to see them receive a beatdown from the US. Even Iranians in this country have this weirdly intense (and undeserved) pride in their ancestry. Whites could take a lesson from that."

They also deliver shit and play hard, you clueless fuck. Like in Buenos Aires in 1992. Or the Persian Gulf in '87, '88 and '89. Next stop? Damascus. They're probably there already...


It's always funny to read the keyboard warriors advocate for another pointless war. Sorry to all you Internet heroes but there will be no war with Iran. Obama won't need to bomb Iran to beat the idiot santorum

An embassy bombing means Iran "deliver shit" and "plays hard"? You could have at least used the bombing of the Marine barracks as an example. Your country will be pulverized overnight. Cheers.

"They probably wouldn't do this because the retaliation would be massive, but if the regime ever felt endangered or as if the game was up the nuclear option gives them the ability to take the world with them."

Agreed - and to help ameliorate that maybe the US and Israel would stop threatening to invade and destroy the Iranian ruling government?

It's hard not to see the unstated argument under all of this: If Iran gets nukes it makes it a lot harder to bully them.

Well golly, let's send a couple thousand goyim to die (and greatly increase the risk of internal terrorist retaliation) to make sure our ruling elite can still play their geopolitical games.

An embassy bombing means Iran "deliver shit" and "plays hard"? You could have at least used the bombing of the Marine barracks as an example. Your country will be pulverized overnight. Cheers.-

Yeah, because after the barracks bombing, Iranian influence and ties to Lebanon were shut off for good due to the US military response. Iranians haven't been back since! Please tell Hezbollah. And speaking of naval activities previously mentioned, which you ignore or are clueless about, there's always the Karine A. Use Google, you fucktard.

@Frank Stein

I agree with your idea that our elites' geopolitics is fundamentally stupid. Part of the reason the Iranian theocracy is so anti-American has to do with unforced errors on our part. But how we got here doesn't change the situation: the Iranians are deeply anti-American. They are intimately connected to terrorist organizations actively killing American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Again, these situations are in part due to our bad policy. But the fact remains that at this time and for the foreseeable future they really really don't like us.

Its all well and good to realize you should not have insulted someone, but that doesn't mean you should hand them a gun. And as I said earlier, more nuclear states=higher probability of eventual nuclear war. Nuclear war of any kind anywhere is about the worst possible thing that could happen, period.

It may seem strange to advocate action now to help prevent a distant scenario from unfolding. Typically war is a mistake absent a clear and present threat. Humanitarian democratization wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are tremendous, fantastic blunders on an historical scale. But nuclear weapons change the equation. They raise the stakes to infinite.

I hope you will agree that a world in which every african, South American, and middle eastern country is a nuclear power is doomed. I would rather play russian roulette with 3 chambers loaded than live in that world. It is a fallacy to equate Iranian nuclear power with that world, but at the same time an iranian nuclear weapon brigns us closer to that world, and undermines our 'moral' ability to stop future proliferation.

Also, Israel and the US have not threatened to invade and overthrow the Iranian government to my knowledge. Iran, however, has threatened to destroy Israel. Resentful, messianic muslims should be the last people to have nuclear weapons. If muslims are going to suicide bomb us because they are mad we stopped them from having even bigger bombs, then that is their problem and vae victus.

It was Arabs who bombed us on 9/11. While the dictatorship in Iran is fundamentalist, they can be thrown out like the previous regime and the people will be a whole lot more moderate. Compare that to millions of Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, and Jordan ready to die for Allah and not to mention their Islamic allies like Pakistan which already have nukes. Which one is the bigger threat to Israel and the West?

Jesus, I see that the war for "keeping America safe for the Democrat Party" continues.

Has anyone bothered to notice that the vast majority of terror attacks occurred in Democrat cities? Or that the vast majority of front-line trigger-puller combat soldiers are emphatically NOT from Democrat cities? How long is the Republican going to insist on sending a Republican soldier to die for a Democrat civilian?

Sure, I can take a lot of pleasure from the killing of Iranians. They are really no better than the democrats they would murder in some hypothetical attack on New York. Why should they get any victory? But as long as this stupid country insists on importing an ever larger number of stupid, hostile foreigners into SWPL cities as props in some never-ending status game, I see no reason why the Democrat should be protected from the consequences of his actions.

It's like this whole abortion issue. Yes, abortion is murder, but who is getting the majority of abortions? Democrats. Your political enemy is helping cull the next generation of traitors and you want to argue against this?

Obama isn't Jimmy Carter, and Iran acting out offers him a perfect set up for an October surprise. He already has a casus belli in Iran's threats to close the Straights of Hormuz. Obama's not dumb enough to get ensnared in another ground war, but he could bomb the crap out of Iran's coastal defenses and probably give himself a 5-10 point boost in the polls overnight.

This is about more than just Iran getting nukes and threatening Israel. Iranians and Arabs aren't exactly friends. If Iran gets nukes then all the Arab states in the region will scramble to get them in response. That drastically increases the chances of a nuclear attack not only by their governments but by someone slipping nukes or at least nuclear waste to some terrorist cell anywhere in the world. If Iran gets the bomb then everyone is at risk. Someone is going to have to do something about it. Israel has the most to lose so it will end up being them.

Iran may not be a "superpower" but they're not nothing. They're certainly more competent than Iraq both militarily and strategically. Iran had set up proxies throughout the middle east. As I wrote on my blog yesterday, I suspect that may be part of the reason for the "Arab Spring" that took place last year. With all the turmoil throughout Egypt, Libya, Syria and possibly Lebanon they've pretty much been taken out of the equation. That's what makes me almost certain that there will be a preemptive strike against Iran. If it weren't already decided those revolutions wouldn't have taken place.

Tractal,

I appreciate your detailed responses. Nice to see not everyone is a Krauthammer (Dr. Strangelove) clone.

I also appreciate that you admit that US government foreign policy over the past 40+ years has generated a large portion of the problems and animus we see in Iran (and elsewhere) today. I just don't think it is wise to acknowledge history and then shoo it away; we should actually try to learn from it and stop making the same mistakes. And by "we" I don't mean the ruling elite; they never have to face the consequences of their actions - and they never have to face the horrors of the wars they cause.

You would think/hope that the people would learn from even recent history. After Powell's charade in front of the UN to justify the Iraq invasion, there would be much skepticism when our leaders and the MSM start beating the war drums again. For the average citizen, Iran having nukes or not having nukes won't affect their lives one bit, while the US engaging in yet another costly war they can't afford likely will, for generations to come.

While we like to think that Iran's rulers are insane, they are merely power-hungry semi-sociopaths, just like the rulers in every other country, including our own. And we should know better than to believe the words that come out of any of their mouths.

A true nuclear war threatens not just Israel but every country on that side of the globe. It's not like radiation obeys treaties and country boundaries. When Russia and China (and Pakistan and India) act as frantic and worried as Hillary Clinton, then maybe there is something real to deal with. Otherwise, it smells funny - and is certainly not a good enough reason to place Americans even further in harm's way.

I agree, I hope Obama does the right thing; indeed, it would be terrible if our American boys ended up face down dead in the sand for wars that they do not support (Ron Paul got more donations from military personnel than any other candidate).

Does Halfsigma want war so his stock portfolio increases in value?

[HS: What's wrong with investing in oil?

I didn't write that we should go to "war," and no one important is going to read my blog and follow my advice anyway even if I gave such advice.]

Of course, the modern Iranians aren't entirely a Persian group. For modern Iranians to call themselves "Persian" is a bit like modern Italians calling themselves "Roman", or Greeks claiming pure "Hellenic" origin.

Iran includes alot of people besides ethnic Persians, who are barely a majority. The core Persian group is indicated by the Y-chromosomal R1a1 hapologroup (associated with other indo-europeans), Arabs/Jews tend to be J 1 or 2. Iran is only partially Persian. All of these ancient nations preserved parts of their cores, but the genetic comoposition has changed significantly. My own people have Mongol admixture, but, we are still Chinese and have some "core Han" roots.

Ashkenazim aren't exactly the descendants of Solomon or Moses, but they still take credit for ancient Jewish history. Iranians can do the same for Persian culture as can Modern Chinese for the Han dynasty.

The comments to this entry are closed.